Issues #12, 25, 45 deals with coordination with horizontal groups such
as WAI, I18N, Comm, TAG, etc.
I think we ought to keep them separate the way they are.
For the matter of horizontal technical reviews (WAI, I18N, DI), I
think we can live with an adhoc tracking system done separately in
each activity.
The attempt in the past was only done to centralize the list of specs
to review (e.g. listing upcoming schedule over several months), not to
actually do shared reviews, and after a while it was just abandonned
since each group where doing it themselves their own way using their
own priorities, and following various annoucements list (chairs, ac)
for tracking.
I realise the issue 12 is more general that just the review (about
interaction), so I think we should spend some time on wording out a
clear problem statement: what we would like to do and why wrt
horizontal technical reviews.
The issue of Comm relationship and TAG are of a different nature.
For Comm, which involves the pubrules (shepperded by our Comm team at
W3C), we certainly need a point of contact, maybe Ian can be
that. Note that Dom is also part of it as Webmaster and guardian of
pubrules. But there is also the issue of external Comm and how we can
sell QA to the W3C members and the world. What we can ask WG to
publish in terms of TS results without being sued, etc.
For TAG, it's another case again, and before we better understand what
the TAG is really going to do, it's hard to say how we want to
interact with them. Ian is the TAG main editor, so he may be our best
contact again.
In summary, it's ok assigning these issues to me, as it's my role as
QA activity lead to try to move forward with them as we move forward
in the activity.